TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Elghanayan v. Elghanayan

Shirley Elghanayan v. Faramarz Elghanayan

Elghanayan v. Elghanayan, 102 A.D.2d 803 (1984)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
June 28, 1984
Citations
102 A.D.2d 803477 N.Y.S.2d 1631984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18963

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Order entered January 10,1984 in Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), granting defendants’ motion to dismiss two causes of action and cancel a notice of pendency is unanimously reversed, on the law, the second and tenth causes of action are restored, and the lis pendens is reinstated, with costs. H Plaintiff alleges that certain Manhattan real estate was purchased jointly by her and her husband, but through fraudulent conversion he has transferred the property to a family corporation and is seeking to sell it. Plaintiff filed a notice of pendency and her complaint seeks (among other things) to impose a constructive trust and a determination of her claim to the property. She alleges the requisite fraud on the part of her husband entitling her to a lis pendens until a trial may be had upon the merits. (5303 Realty Corp. vO &Y Equity Corp., 98 AD2d 632,633 .) While apparently there is a London divorce suit in progress, this action is solely concerned with the Manhattan property and defendant’s alleged fraudulent conversion of it. Although the court below relied upon Chambi v Navarro, Vives & Cia ( 95 AD2d 667 ) in canceling the notice of pendency, it did not have available to it our decision in 5303 Realty Corp. vO &Y Equity Corp. ( 98 AD2d 632 , supra). *804 Under the circumstances, we find the lis pendens appropriate and the second and tenth causes of action to be viable. (5303 Realty Corp. v O & Y Equity Corp., supra; Weingarten v Minskoff, 204 App Div 750 .) Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Silverman and Milonas, JJ.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1985: 11990: 12006: 12007: 12008: 119852026peak 1985 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Diaz v. Paterson547 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2008)
  2. American Motor Club, Inc. v. Neu (In re American Motor Club, Inc.)109 B.R. 595 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1990)
  3. Elghanayan v. Elghanayan107 A.D.2d 595 (1985) · Dissent
  4. Caruso, Caruso & Branda, P.C. v. Hirsch41 A.D.3d 407 (2007)
  5. Sorenson v. Bridge Capital Corp.30 A.D.3d 1144 (2006)

Most recent

  1. Diaz v. Paterson547 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2008)
  2. Caruso, Caruso & Branda, P.C. v. Hirsch41 A.D.3d 407 (2007)
  3. Sorenson v. Bridge Capital Corp.30 A.D.3d 1144 (2006)
  4. American Motor Club, Inc. v. Neu (In re American Motor Club, Inc.)109 B.R. 595 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1990)
  5. Elghanayan v. Elghanayan107 A.D.2d 595 (1985) · Dissent

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
5303 Realty Corp. v. O & Y Equity Corp., 98 A.D.2d 632 (1983) 3
Weingarten v. Minskoff, 204 A.D. 750 (1923) 7
Chambi v. Navarro, Vives & Cia, Ltd., 95 A.D.2d 667 (1983) 6

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list